I've been reading Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine, and in the first part of the book, she describes how Milton Friedman and his fellow U. of Chicago economists and students yearned for a "laboratory" where they they could put their free market ideas into practice in a pure form.
The problem was that most economies at that time were not "pure" market economies, but had massive government intrusions, mainly in the forms of support for unions, minimum wage laws, universal education, etc. So they colluded with potential dictators such as Pinochet in Chile, who, if placed in power, could impose market reforms that would be impossible if the workers had any say in them. According to Klein, the result was massive redistribution of wealth to the rich, and misery (shock) for lots of others.
It occurred to me, as I was reading this, that Friedman didn't have to go to all the trouble to manufacture a relatively pure "free market," and in fact, it was right in front of him all the time.
I am referring, of course, to the illegal drug trade in the United States. In an earlier age, it could have been the illegal liquor trade.
I'm no expert in either of these trades, other than what I read in the newspapers, see in movies, or watch on music videos, but it seems to me that these trades really are free market systems. The only governmental influence is to shut them down completely, so, to the extent that they do exist, there is no governmental influence - no unions, no taxes, no regulation of working conditions, etc.
And when I think of the drug trade, I think also of gangs and mafias, and the very same things that pertain to Chile's dictatorship (and other "free market" experiments) - a small group of very rich entrepreneurs with private armies to protect them and violent means of dealing with the public and their own gangland wannabees, where group logos are tagged onto billboards everywhere, where profits and bling trump all, where everything centers on secret deals, deceit and corporate espionage, and especially, raw personal power over other people's lives.
And I'm thinking, if only Friedman and his acolytes had recognized that relatively pure examples of free markets were already in existence, near to hand, and they could see for themselves how much misery and violence usually accompanies them, then maybe the world could have avoided the disasters of Chile under Pinochet, or Katrina under Bush, or Tian An Men under China, etc. etc.
And by the way, I also wonder if this rise in "shock capitalism" or "disaster capitalism"(as Klein terms it) may also be reflected in some trends in art. Your mileage may vary, but I've often thought it strange that there has been such a fascination with Godfather movies, (and other mafia movies), the Sopranos, etc. in recent decades. Again, I'm no expert since I don't actually watch them (real life is dangerous enough), but it seems to me that, in movies of the thirties and forties, and early fifties, there were certainly gangland characters, but rarely (if ever) were they the main heroes of the movies, Sidney Greenstreet notwithstanding. Certainly no one seemed concerned about their inner psychology and everyday struggles and family life the way these more modern films seem to.
But perhaps the difference is that now, with the rise of these free market ideas worldwide, people are more attuned to the gangland life style. Maybe they are subconsciously, symbolically, responding to the increasingly prevalent "free markets" with their accompanying organized violence, which now seem to dominate our world.
On the other hand, maybe I'm off base here, because I'm talking about art that I know mainly from trailers.
Anyway, I definitely recommend Klein's books, and if I ever hear her speak, I'll ask her about what she thinks about drug gangs compared to United Fruit (or the Opium Wars, for that matter).
There are lots of places on the web to see and hear Naomi Klein speak. I'll end this diary with a bunch of links that worked recently for me:
The first of six short five-minute segments of a talk in Vancouver, BC. This was the first video I ever saw about Klein and her book, may have been one of the first ever posted. (Its a year and a half old)
A short film by Alfonso Cuaron (about 7 minutes) inspired by The Shock Doctrine.
An hour-and-a-half speech and question-and-answer session in Portland Oregon.
An hour-long speech in Miami.
An hour-and-twenty minute talk at Dundee University
A somewhat confrontational interview with Charlie Rose.
A definitely confrontational recent interview (July 17, 2008) on Fox Business News. This one is so "Fox" --- two against one, Naomi seated lower than the hosts, anchors that look like clothes models, etc. A classic.
A recent (July 15, 2008) interview with Klein on Democracy Now. It's about forty minutes long, I think.
No Logo, a film about a previous book of Klein's about the branded lifestyle.
In addition to these, you can also find various videos on YouTube that purport to answer Klein with clips of Milton Friedman, etc.